 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Feb 2010 : 16:50:34
|
Jeggan Should Have Done Better
Mr Editor,
Please allow me space to respond to Jeggan Grey-Johnson’s article of 9th February 2010 which was published in your well established medium under the heading; ‘‘Agenda 2011; The Opposition Leaders Must Do the Right Thing.’’
While I agree that the opposition should get it right this time around, I do not however agree that Agenda 2011 is the right basis for this. This is an ill-conceived theory that was propounded by a disingenuous political ideologue on the basis of two premises namely; that the NADD alliance did not work because it was unable to gather significant amount of votes in the 2006 presidential elections, and also that the UDP led alliance did not work because it had registered a drop in votes from their 2001 electoral standing. While I agree with the former, I beg to differ with the latter. That premise is not only flawed, it is also fraught with the propounder's very own personal prejudice against a possible UDP led alliance in 2011.
Although it is true that the UDP registered a drop in votes from their 2001 standing, this however cannot be attributed to the type of alliance [party led alliance] they adopted in 2006. As was rightly indicated in the UDP- UK rejoinder of 1st February 2010, UDP’s drop in votes resulted from two things; their own lack of adequate preparation thanks to their prior membership of NADD, and the unprecedented low voter turnout [58.58%] that was witnessed in 2006 which when compared to the 2001 voter turn-out [89.71%], indicates a drop of 31.13% and this is notwithstanding the fact that the national voter register had been updated with 219,630 new voters in 2006. Going by the results of 2006 presidential election, it doesn’t appear that these voters had voted for a different party rather than the UDP. They just didn’t vote. Otherwise, why is it that NADD barely crossed over the 5% threshold?
Some might argue that the low voter turn-out was a direct result of opposition disunity. While this may be true, it does not however lend any credence to Agenda 2011 as there is no evidence which suggests that this was a specifically directed protest against the UDP led alliance. Even if the connection between opposition disunity and the voter turn-out is validly made and I am not saying it is not, it would appear that the situation would still have been the same irrespective of whatever type of alliance any party might have chosen to adopt, be it party led alliance, the so-called umbrella party or indeed a grand coalition. Therefore, it is not the nature of party led alliance that is the issue here but the factors that inhibited the realisation of its full potentials in 2006. That is what folks with genuine interest in opposition unity want to talk about, not some kind of superficial political theories that are specifically invented to circumvent the rules of conventional politics in furtherance of a particular individual’s selfish agenda. A grand coalition as spelled-out in Agenda 2011 is pretty much akin to the NADD coalition - the only difference being the name - and would be vitiated with the same problems that eventually led to the breakdown of NADD. Hence, it is not an option. It is just a mere but crude academic exercise. Therefore and instead of asking the leaders to commit the same mistake and somehow expect a different result or levelling false accusations against the leadership of the United Democratic Party – accusing them of paying a lip service to the call for unity -, Jeggan should have been bold enough to ask Halifa Sallah and his PDOIS Party to put their personal pride, egos and idealism aside and immediately embrace a UDP led alliance without any obnoxious precondition whatsoever. That is the only thing that has never happened before and it is about time history is made.
The UDP has proven itself over and over of being the dominant force in Gambia’s opposition politics. Any future alliance/coalition of all opposition parties must therefore be built around them. This is a sacred principle of any democratic political dispensation and no amount of spinning and hypocrisy will be allowed to circumvent it. The earlier the fringe parties recognise this, the better for our chances of forging a unified alliance of all opposition parties against the ruling APRC in 2011. This is not about helping someone to become an elite as Halifa would say. It is about adhering to the rules of conventional politics; coalitions are usually led by the biggest party in the group. If Halifa and his PDOIS party are not prepared to accept this, then they mustn't call for an opposition coalition.
Jeggan’s suggestion of a primary election as a mechanism for selecting a candidate for a possible coalition of all opposition parties is both misplaced and untenable. Primaries are normally an internal party contest where individuals contest for the leadership/candidature of a given party in a forthcoming general election. Coalitions of independent sovereign political parties don’t contest primaries to determine who their leader should be. That is normally determined by the results of the preceding general election. This is what we have seen in Israel, Germany and Italy just to name a few. There is no reason why this should not apply to the opposition in the Gambia.
In 2006, 127,473 electorates voted for the opposition combined. Out of this, 81% voted for the UDP candidate and 19% for NADD – the so-called PDOIS and PPP-OJ coalition – This exhibits a clear expressed will of the Gambian people which is valid for five years – it expires only after the 2011 presidential election – and have therefore effectively rendered the whole idea of a primary utterly obsolete as a legitimate candidate can easily be determined from these statistics.
Jeggan’s claim that PPP-OJ and PDOIS coalition [NADD] registered an increase of 100% in their 2006 score is really laughable. I couldn’t stop asking myself whether he is in his trees. This shows that our dear friend is detached from both the facts and the political reality on the ground. PPP and PDOIS never contested a general election together as an alliance prior to the 2006 presidential election. Hence, there is no prior statistics that could be used to determine whether they have registered an increase or a decrease. What is however crystal clear is that this alliance or whatever they chose to call it, is not fit for purpose for it is an extremely weak one. Out of forty-eight constituencies, they had 1,000 or more votes in only five constituencies. In thirty-three constituencies, they had less than 1000 votes and in ten constituencies less than 100 votes. I see no potential in such a diabolical electoral performance.
As for who leads the UDP, that is a matter for the general membership and if Jeggan doesn’t like the current leader, he should join the party before its upcoming congress and fight from within. Otherwise, he should, frankly speaking, shut up.
I hope he will do more research next time before going to the press.
SS Daffeh
Essex, UK
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 15 Feb 2010 20:44:26 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 15 Feb 2010 : 22:15:23
|
You are in your own U.D.P world Nyarikangbana, carlos in disquise with all kinds of faces; Sonny Daffeh, Bakoteh woman Fatou Gaye, Steering committee UDP-UK & self appointed advocate that never dealt with the issues rightly but always engage in distortions and antagonism without any official mandate from U.D.P
You have deviated again from Jeggan's opinions Gambia: Agenda 2011: leaders of opposition parties must do the right thing By Jeggan Grey-Johnson under http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/Homepage/tabid/36/mid/367/newsid367/4906/Gambia-Agenda-2011--leaders-of-opposition-parties-must-do-the-right-thing/Default.aspx
For example I don't gather anything from your first paragragh and cannot relate it with any of Jeggan's opinions; "While I agree that the opposition should get it right this time around, I do not however agree that Agenda 2011 is the right basis for this. This is an ill-conceived theory that was propounded by a disingenuous political ideologue on the basis of two premises namely; that the NADD alliance did not work because it was unable to gather significant amount of votes in the 2006 presidential elections, and also that the UDP led alliance did not work because it had registered a drop in votes from their 2001 electoral standing. While I agree with the former, I beg to differ with the latter. That premise is not only flawed, it is also fraught with the propounder's very own personal prejudice against a possible UDP led alliance in 2011."
You have never been privy to any U.D.P negotiations for coalition or alliance and cannot represent U.D.P in its Agenda 2011 to seek a common ground with other opposition parties. N.A.D.D was created by S.T.G.D.P and not Halifa's. To silence you on boasting with "un-conditional acceptance of a party led coalition & Lawyer Darboe to lead at all costs"; it is interesting to re-visit this letter from Musa Jeng (former Secretary General of S.T.G.D.P) and remind you what is kept under the archives of Gambia-L;
["From: Musa Jeng <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: The Truth behind NADD breakup - Ousainou.
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain
Ousainou Darbo’s role:
Ousainou Darboe, the leader of the UDP was one of the most needed participants to the coalition effort, and being the leader of the biggest party his role was critical for its success. It is indeed a fact that the UDP withdrawal from the coalition led to the disintegration of the effort, which resulted to the political morass our country is confronted with today. The UDP, like their counterparts in the opposition saw the coalition idea as one of the best idea in defeating Jammeh, and usher in a new beginning. Irrespective of the partisan divide, if blame is to be apportioned in regards to who among the leaders led to the break up, by far it was Ousainou. The coalition disintegration happen because he walked away from it. He made it clear that he walked away because he could not trust his partners. As an insider in STGDP, I will try to elucidate Ousainou's role to the NADD break up, which ultimately became the final blow to our dream.
From Day one, STGDP understood one underlying fact that these parties supported the coalition idea because it was the surest way of defeating Jammeh. My friends, this was the only thing that we had going for us in bringing about peaceful change to the Gambia. There is not a single Gambian who did not understand what both president Jammeh and Fatou Jahumpha meant when they said: these people would never come together. It was obvious to most of us that the longer they postponed the idea of selecting a leader; the whole thing could one day come crashing. Ousainou’s role in the breakup was his inability to lead, his ego and not completely upfront with the truth. He was never able to establish credibility and commitment to the effort at all, other than leading it and becoming president. It is sad that sometimes we got caught up with partisan politics, but any honest Gambian understood that this whole effort was not only to get rid of Jammeh. We wanted to have our politicians to come to gether and build a political culture of good governance, rule of law and to bring an end to military aristocracy. We believed that this could be an opportunity for Gambia to bring its own Mandela, our own Sankara – a true leader that will at least attempt to bring the building blocs of a democracy. The only thing we got from Ousainou was I am the leader of the biggest party, and join me in this wrestling match and I will defeat Jammeh. As for the details, well just trust me.
Ousainou’s role from Day one was that this coalition should be party led, and he should be the leader. A majority of Gambians in STGDP that were true believers to the success of this effort, never really questioned the rationale that he is indeed one of the most viable leaders that can make it happen. His side kicks in the US were always buttressing and making the justification that all over Africa this is how coalitions are done. In his first trip to the US after the formation of NADD, we had an informal meeting with him in Atlanta. If there was one think that stood out was his emphasis on making sure that the process should come up with a saleable candidate, and he also complained to us the impracticality of the NADD concept. He blamed his partners for not listening to him, which led to the Supreme Court ruling for the opposition to vacate their seats in the National assembly. Interestingly, when he was confronted with what he meant by a saleable candidate at the public meetin g, he bob and weave and basically concluded that all the NADD leaders were indeed saleable. When he was pressed whether he will stay with NADD even if he does not become the leader, he said and I paraphrase: I am not the kind of person that would sign on a dotted line and walk away from a commitment. It is also interesting that being the leader of the biggest party within the opposition and was a presidential candidate twice, his role in the effort should have been to take the lead, to be proactive, reaching out and building consensus. Obviously, it was natural for the smaller parties to be skeptical because they did not want to be swallowed by the bigger brother. Especially, After the Jammeh revolution – transparency and accountability, nobody wanted to find ourselves fighting a similar fight, except this time it will be a person of their own making – it was OJ Jallow who wants told me this. When the OJ’s and Halifa were putting together meetings, and taking leadership role in try ing to build the coalition, all he was interested in was to be handed over the leadership on a silver platter. In fact, He was not attending the meetings, he was always represented by Kemeseng Jammeh and Yaya Jallow .Anytime a critical issue was to be tabled, He will attend. On several occasions, even after the group including his own representatives agreed to an issue, he will insist on revisiting. This has contributed to the delay and sent clear message to his partners that this man was not a team player. He would revisit all the past decisions and bring in new arguments. Any leader with a vision would have played a much more leadership role, reaching out, reassuring your political nemesis and to be seen from day one as the Moses that will take us to the promise land. For a moment, let us even overlook the fact that he was the leader of the biggest party, and bring his legal training. Every aspect of the MOU should have been championed by the best legal mind in the group, and the re is absolutely no doubt that he has the capability. This document was debated and debated; because in the final analysis this was suppose to be the agreement that will bind them under one voice. Trust but verify – as president Regan use to tell the Soviets. I am of the belief that he never respected the process, and even when he signed the dotted line of the MOU. He put his signature to a document that he does not truly believe in his entirety and had no intention of honoring it. Really, Ousainous’s attitude was I am the leader of the biggest party, I am just going to go along with this charade and when everything is said and done I will lead it. And if it does not happen, I will walk away. All over the world, Leaders become sole owners of a struggle from the vision, ideas and the strategy. There was a reason why MLK was the leader of the civil rights struggle, Mandela the leader of the Apartheid struggle, even behind bars, and even the reason why president Jammeh became the lea der of the July 22 struggle. These people knew how to lead. Ousainou never wanted to do what leaders do to lead, neither did he want to follow anyone, and when he finally got out of the way the whole process and effort came crashing down. The MOU, represented the building blocs of this effort, and this is a document that they all agreed to, and no matter how idealistic or unreasonable the document, especially as a trained lawyer, if he was honest with his approach from day one, we could have ended up with a compromised document. He was never an architect of it and even when he supposedly had problems with it, in the end he agreed to the final deal. In the final analysis, his lack of leadership skills contributed his inability to lead and which led to his withdrawal, and the final blow to NADD.
Ousainou’s ego was another serious problem, and this I recognized after meeting him couple of time up and close, and it really couldn’t have helped his relationship with his partners... He was a prisoner of his own ego, and there was no way he could have brought himself to see anyone else leading this struggle other than him. This is not to say that he did not have a legitimate claim to the mantle, but for God sake fight for it and be very up front. To his defense, I understood and respected some of his arguments: I was giving the process a chance and have agreed to things that I might even have problems with, but keeping eye at the big issue - and defeating Jammeh was worth it. And when his partners would not at least, wink wink, give him the ultimate price for his compromises and sacrifice, he could not handle it. This, my friends, is the trust that he kept hammering away. He was never ever going to compromise the leadership to anyone, even though he subscribed to the selection p rocess as indicated in the MOU. In this neighborhood such actions are considered dishonest, as an uncle and a father with due respect, I will say not too upfront with the truth. In the early part of the planning and all through the struggle, I have always worked with Karamba, a person that has contributed greatly to the effort. I once asked him whether Ousainou would consider anything other than leading the effort. He told me flatly, this is where we will draw the line on the sand, and I believed him. I have shared this position with the rest of the group, and I told them as far as I am concern – Karamba’s position is ultimately Ousainou’s. I was absolutely convinced that He was not going to compromise the leadership to anyone. Coming back to the ego issue as a contributing factor .When we learned that he was going to call for a press conference and that he was finally leaving NADD. Let me say, this was not the first time we were in this situation with him threatening to leave. B ut this time around it was different, his ego was badly bruised. He walked into that fiasco selection process hoping to be coronate, and when it did not happen, he was finally convinced that his colleagues were not really interested in taking the risk with him. This was too much for him. This particular night it was different, we stayed on the phone for hours begging him to give us at least twenty-four hours to see what we can do to find a way out. He was steadfast, and said he has made up his mind and that he could not do business with these people anymore. Finally, his ego was dealt a final blow, and he was willing to find another way of defeating Jammeh and bring about change, but definitely not with these folks. Another instance that I saw his ego up and close was in Atlanta, this was after he left NADD, and STGDP was still trying to salvage the effort. We sat down in a Hotel with him, Amadou Taal, a surprising Haruna Darboe who has been out of the loop for sometimes and Banka Manneh. STGDP had a proposal that we wanted to discuss with him and to see what other possibilities. We were convinced his ego will not let him come back to NADD; therefore, the proposal to consider was to create a new alliance of UDP/NRP and NADD, he will lead it but only to run under an independent ticket with Halifa as his running mate. Remember, we were only trying to rekindle a lost hope, and this was a proposal that we contacted lots of folks including UDP supporters. To my dismay, his only response was, in a very forceful and angry tirade: “I have been meeting their demands for the past three years, now they have to come to me” To that I said, what difference does it really makes because we are not asking you to rejoin to NADD, and even critical points in the MOU like, term limits were being addressed in this new document. For me I found it to be really very disappointing for his outburst, and it revealed a lot about him as leader with a serious ego problem. This meeting c ontributed to my own outburst, accusing him of being obsessed with the presidency, when he went after STGDP at that infamous interview with the Post.
After a close encounter with him, without a doubt, I found his ego could not have been helpful in his quest to lead a country through a struggle and bring real democracy to the Gambia. This was indeed a huge character flaw. In addition, his inability to reach out to his nemesis Waa, as I indicated about Waa’s attitude to Ouasainou, but his ego without a doubt was not helpful in burying hatchet with political foes. Indeed his feelings to Waa contributed immensely to his lack of appetite to attend important scheduled NADD meetings. Even after the other players voted down the party led that the UDP advocated, he still went along with the majority opinion, even though he had no intention of respecting it.
In the final analysis, the leader of the biggest party walked away from an effort that could have change the political landscape of our country, basically because of his lack of leadership, a prisoner of his own ego and not being upfront with the process from the beginning to the end.
Thanks
Musa Jeng" ]
I keenly followed Lawyer Darboe-U.D.P leader's stance with other opposition parties he stated; ‘‘I think there are some efforts being made for the oppositions to come together, and these efforts have not yet been found to be fruitful,”he told the Freedom Newspaper. More from Freedom newspaper Breaking News: Gambia/Interview: Jammeh’s Reelection Means Enslavement For Gambians- Warns Darboe - UDP To Go On Congress To Elect A New Leadership - Opposition Leader Hints About An Opposition Front To Dislodge Jammeh under http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/Homepage/tabid/36/mid/367/newsid367/4867/Breaking-News-GambiaInterview-Jammehs-Reelection-Means-Enslavement-For-Gambians--Warns-Darboe-/Default.aspx
Then up-to-date we have not heard from Lawyer Darboe until Shyngle Nyassi came through Daily news “No Lousy Propaganda in Gambian Politics” - Shyngle Nyassi under http://www.dailynews.gm/index.php?id=dn_home&tx_wecdiscussion[single]=1020095
IN MY OPINION amongst others; the forgoing can help readers understand that there were (& there shall always be) differences of opinions? Agenda 2011 is connected with meaningful use of the statistics on the electoral register, failed conspiracies, tactics and strategies of 2006. Therefore we should shift our attention from distortions, smearing campaigns and politics of personalities to address the issues and challenges for opposition to make APRC history?A very though challenge for opposition parties seriously wounded, "in a state of coma" or considered "dead" & constraints inter alia
U.D.P IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY BECAUSE IT IS A POLITICAL PARTY THAT SHOULD HAVE A GOOD LEADERSHIP, PROPER OFFICIAL ORGAN / PROTOCOLS TO ADDRESS ANY RELEVANT ISSUES DEEMED FIT FOR PUBLIC AUDIENCE & MARKET ITS IDEALS |
Edited by - kobo on 16 Feb 2010 00:50:50 |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2010 : 16:32:12
|
ALL RIGHT THINKING OPPOSITION GAMBIANS SHARE A COMMON GOAL FOR UNITY AND THIS IS WHAT GMC SATED FROM QUOTES EXTRACTED:-
"GMC insists that significant failures of past political efforts to effect historic electoral changes in the recent past should be courageously admitted by those political organisations responsible, instead of persistently passing the buck upon each other on a bridge to nowhere. Acknowledgment of failure with the alacrity to learn from the experiences of such failure is a mark of pragmatic leadership. Refusal to admit political failures by those involved is the clearest sign of insincerity and a mark of gross contempt for our citizens. GMC had refrained from commenting on this very negative phenomenon until now that it appears to fundamentally endanger the prospects for a united opposition which is contrary the vital electoral interest of our suffering citizens.
While using this opportunity to welcome in principle the proposals of Hon. Haruna Darboe of the Global Democracy Project in his recent Open Letter to all Opposition Parties, GMC urges all alternative political forces to appreciate that the interests of The Gambia transcends Party or individual. To this end, GMC is ready to dissolve its Leadership in favour of a genuine united opposition, and calls on the others and their allies to put an end to their persistent bickering as to who should take blame for the fatal failures of NADD. The conduct of an opposition party is good indicator of its future attitude to public affairs in government.
In consideration of the spirit of the said Open Letter, GMC urges our colleagues to disentangle themselves from the perilous ghost of NADD after having learnt lessons and allow genuine unity of the opposition movement a chance to flourish without delay. Our commitment to one man one vote is informed by our interest that unless politicians (both in government and in opposition) are conscious of the fact that they owe their office at the pleasure of the electorate, good governance would be impossible. Lawyer Mai Fatty GMC
Senegambia news on GMC PRESS RELEASE under http://www.senegambianews.com/article/Press_Releases/Press_Releases/GMC_Issues_Statement_on_Gambias_45th_Independence_Anniversary/19091 |
Edited by - kobo on 21 Feb 2010 16:34:25 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
